PURAN NETAM Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Case put-forth by the prosecution in nutshell is that on 30.12.2007 at about 8 PM when the prosecutrix (PW-2) along-with her elder sister and friends was enjoying village fair, the accused/appellant herein came there and caught hold of her hands. It is alleged that when she tried to free herself from the clutches of the accused/appellant, he tied both her hands with the Saari worn by her and when this act of the accused/appellant was opposed by her sister and friends, he threatened them all of being beaten. Thereafter, he took her to village Chhurawand and kept her in confinement in the house of one Rasool (PW-4) and subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse twice on that day. She is alleged to have been held captive by the accused/appellant in the house of PW-4 till 02.01.2008 and during all this period she was being sexually abused by him. On 02.01.2008 her father Govind Rao (PW-3) came there and freed her. As is alleged by the prosecution, when no decision could be taken in the Panchayat meeting so convened, the FIR (Ex.P-3) came to be lodged on 07.01.2008 i.e. about a week after the date of incident for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 342 and 376 IPC. After medical examination of the prosecutrix and completion of other investigation related formalities, charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellant under these sections followed by framing of charge accordingly.

(2.) On the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution and considering the statement of the accused/appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. learned Court below convicted the accused/appellant under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 342 IPC imposing the sentence of RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.100 U/S. 363; RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.500 U/S. 366; RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.500 U/S. 376 and SI for 6 months under Section 342 IPC plus default stipulations. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that if over all evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-2) is seen in its entirety, she appears to have been a consenting party to the act of the accused/appellant. He submits that the story of her abduction by the accused/appellant from a crowded place that too in the presence of her elder sister and friends and then keeping her in the house of PW-4 for about 3 days and commission of sexual intercourse with her appears to be highly improbable. According to the counsel for the appellant, the prosecution has not even proved by leading clinching evidence that on the date of incident prosecutrix was below 18 years of age. The gist of the over all submission made by counsel for the accused/appellant is that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and, therefore, the benefit has to go to the accused/appellant in the form of acquittal.